Helen Clark dead in Plane Crash!


helen clarkIn breaking news former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has been killed in a plane crash in Denver, America. Clark had been there as part of her new job at the United Nations. At this stage news is very sketchy and gaining information has been difficult. However, Global Associated News has a reporter on the ground and  their website is the most reliable. CLICK HERE for the link and latest news.

While the above situation is not true, my sources still believe Helen is still alive and well, it does make you think about how information is passed on through the media and internet. This information comes from a website called FakeAWish where you select a celebrity to die in a variety of different ways. Try it out!!

cant wait for this stuff to arrive

cant wait for this stuff to arrive

Some people may be outraged at a site like this and others will take it a little more in their stride. Whatever you point of view it does make you think about the information we receive on the web. Does information have to be true to be passed on to the public? Should the media have some sort of regulator to ensure the information they pass on is correct? Only the other day I purchased some ‘dehydrated water’ via this website on the net. I thought it would be fantastic to take camping this summer. All I would have to do is add water and presto, pure water at my finger tips. Unfortunately the product hasn’t arrived and I am out of pocket $30 USD. While most people would argue ‘NO’ to a censor of some kind, the rubbish that we get delivered into our homes and onto our computer screens is sometimes criminal.

Only Tonight I logged onto the Stuff webpage and was confronted by this heading  ‘Parents still Smack Despite its Ineffectiveness’. No doubt the writer was doing that to get a number of hits, especially after the recent referendum. Technically the heading of the article is correct but after you read the actual study these headings would also have been true.

1/5 of Families believe time out is ineffective for disciplining children.

92% of families believe ignoring your child is an effective discipline technique.

99% of New Zealand families believe ‘hugs and smiles’ are effective discipline techniques.

I clicked on to the article and was delivered perhaps on of the most one sided articles I have seen for sometime. Obviously the author hadn’t taken the time to look that only 100 families were included in the study. They obviously didn’t look at the statistics as many of them didn’t make any sense.

Let’s have a look at some of the statements made;

Nearly half of families still smack their children, despite very few believing it is effective as a form of discipline, a Families Commission study suggests. This was a study that just looked at 100 New Zealand families. One would say it is a rash statement to use the term ‘half of families’.

Upbringing, written material, family, media and friends were all influential on parenting. No kidding. What other influences are there left.

Time out was the most common form of discipline, used by 82 per cent of respondents, but only 43 per cent believed it was effective. So the heading in the newspaper could have read ‘57% of New Zealand parents using ineffective discipline with their children’

Smacking and shouting were used by 41 per cent, although only 9 per cent believed smacking was effective, while 5 per cent believed shouting worked. Oh but we forgot to mention here that only 43% of people answered this question. So the title could have read 66% of families believe smacking is effective’.

The study, conducted last month, followed an August referendum in which 87 per cent of respondents said no to the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” WRONG – The data was collected between December 2006 and July 2008.

Barnardo’s chief executive Murray Edridge said parents were being “authoritative without being authoritarian”. What does this mean Mr Edridge?? Can I be authoritative without being authoritarian? I assume that means that if you are authoritarian you are a bad person.

I realise that on the net information is one sided. Heck most of the posts I make on this site have no research and the truth is often bent in half like a horse shoe. However, you would think that our media would be a little more careful and a little more diligent in their work. Instead they just seem to parrot off and copy and paste news without anyone actually reading the content. Imagine if you or I were as accurate in our jobs as the media are in theirs. Most of use would be fired within a week. If you were a pilot you would be dead within a day and if you had Helen Clark onboard then perhaps that first paragraph would come true.

Advertisements

Posted on October 15, 2009, in NEWS MAFIA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. Like what you are saying here Oz!

    All this journalist… did I hear someone say, “Hack”… all this word-less smith affirmed was his (there is an assumption here) presupposition on the issue! While it is to be expected that one would have them [as we all do], the challenge for the said journalist is to do ones best to not allow these to obscure, as best as possible, at least some journalistic integrity on a given issue.

    How modernistic of me!

    Detached journalism seems to be more of a thing of the past. Even on the Nightly News, we are feed sound byte information on a given issue [if one actually watches anything but the sports news… although, The Crowd Goes Wild fills that bill], or are entertained by the latest celebrity meltdown!

    This is also why we need downright diligence like our blogs Oz, where there is more light than heat, where erudite individuals surgically dissect the breaking issues of the day…

    What was I saying again about detached journalism?

  2. Oz, what’s your take on the term ‘anti-smacking bill’

    “Instead they just seem to parrot off and copy and paste news without anyone actually reading the content. “

    • Thanks for your question Joe.

      Oz, what’s your take on the term ‘anti-smacking bill’?

      The term ‘anti-smacking bill’ is the incorrect name given to Parental Control section (Section 59) of the Crimes Act. It was probably invented by Cob McBoskrie or the media in reference to the fact that ‘reasonable force’ was excluded in the rewrite of section 59.

      I used the ‘anti smacking’ example in my post as this is a clear and recent example, from both sides, of people using information incorrectly. Sadly, when two sides debate an issue in New Zealand they start so far apart there is very little to agree on. Consequently, nothing really gets solved.

      Take the debate over Section 59. There are probably more both groups agree on then disagree. Sadly, they debate like they totally disagree on everything. Initially the bill was disguised as an anti-child bashing law. However, it soon became apparent that this was not the case. The law is only there to stop parents smacking their children. So to argue that it is there to stop domestic violence was incorrect and I believe history will show no affects of a reversing in domestic violence. I hope I am wrong.

      Despite disagreeing that making smacking a criminal offense I would have had more respect for those that put forward the law if the writers had of come forward from the beginning and said exactly why they want to put the law through and what they hope to achieve by the law. This was never done.

      Therefore we have the following law in New Zealand.
      “59 Parental control
      “(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
      “(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
      “(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
      “(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
      “(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
      “(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
      “(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
      “(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

      Interestingly, this law does not even give parents the right to correct their children (see point (2)). As force is not defined, it means that parents technically can’t use any discipline technique to correct their children. If anyone can give me a technique that doesn’t require force I would be grateful. Therefore, just after dinner tonight, when my youngest boy went into the lounge and turned the TV off while his older was watching, as a parent I can do nothing to correct his behaviour without breaking Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Time out is a form of force, loss of something is force as is giving him some sort of punishment.

      • “Initially the bill was disguised as an anti-child bashing law. However, it soon became apparent that this was not the case. The law is only there to stop parents smacking their children.”

        It IS an anti-child bashing law AND it stops parents smacking their children. And yes, I know it won’t stop child-bashing, but it will help.
        To stop child bashing there is no magic bullet and nobody ever claimed this to be one, so by stating this will not stop child bashing is pointless. I could point out the fact that every law will not stop a certain sort of behavior by itself. To say the new law will have no effect on child bashing is wrong.

        By outlawing smacking, violence in the home at any level is not allowed, surely thats a good thing?
        The original law was there as a defense in court for child bashing, otherwise what was it there for? It was there to distinguish between bashing and smacking, therefor its there as a defense in court.
        Allowing smacking normalises violence for some people, ban smacking and it will have an effect on child bashing, it won’t stop it of course.

        To see so many people marching in the streets, signing petitions and spending 9 million to have the right to smack their child disgusts me. It honestly disgusts me and I lose hope in New Zealanders. Its not that people think that smacking is ok, I can see your point of view (although I think its a narrow view that doesn’t take into account all causes and outcomes). The thing that disgusts me about this pro-smacking movement is all the other issues kiwis don’t care about, but they march so they can smack their kids!
        National are about to cut support to rape victims through ACC cuts. Where’s the march?
        There’s a lot of things wrong with this world, being able to smack your child is not one of them. The proposed ending of support for rape victims through ACC cutbacks/privatisation is an issue. – where’s the petition?
        The effect of rape, or wanting to be allowed to smack your child, its a shame what New Zealand gets concerned over.

        • Oh dear Joe, where do I start? I’ve got a few years of blog posts that you will probably not care to read, (but feel free to go have a look), so maybe you can do the work for me this time?

          Let’s agree that yelling at your child is a BAD THING and may create mental problems in our children, if they detect anger from their parents. I’m sure raised voices indicate a lack of self control, and could easily escalate to far worse things. Those “worse things” are of course outlawed. Even so, a judge might make a bad ruling and let a parent off for doing a “worse thing”, so let’s change this behaviour and have the government immediately ban raising your voice to your child.

          I want every incident reported to the police and they can decide if they should follow through on charges.

          Let’s keep building our society up with laws just like this for every thing.

          PS: Child bashing and getting a smack in discipline from a parent is not even close to the same event, nor is it something that would necessarily lead to the same event.

          • Oh dear zen tiger….where do I start?
            I am familiar with your blog and have read it before, but find it little more than a blog for a group of self-sufficing backslappers who delight in perpetuating their neo-liberal ideals. Its always the same 5 bloggers aimlessly regurgitating the same thoughts. I have a look every now and then, as I do on M&M to see the reasoning behind right wing arguments, but I’m always left bemused by the lack of common sense and logic. Instead of changing my views or even getting to the point of questioning them, you reinforce them.
            Your post above is a prime example of why I hate blogs, you take my point that smacking is bad and should be banned, then you stretch it, twist it into something else and take it to a ridiculous extreme .
            “Oh, you believe in this……therefore you must also believe this….blah blah blah.”
            Just because I believe in something, that belief does not carry over into every facet of my life.
            Just because you think it’s OK to smack your child, does not mean you think its OK to smack a child with a bat across the face.
            I wouldn’t say that because it would be a stupid argument and a waste of time.
            (But you go for it)

            Now, back to the issue….

            “PS: Child bashing and getting a smack in discipline from a parent is not even close to the same event, nor is it something that would necessarily lead to the same event.”

            To you, me, OZ and most of society, we can all agree to there being a huge difference between a smack and child bashing. But where child abuse (in violent families) occurs there is not that obvious gap and therefore smacking sometimes does lead to child abuse. By saying smacking is illegal, it puts a definite line in the sand when there needs to be one. This will not stop child abuse, but it will decrease it. I see this as an example of attacking an issue at its roots, that being that the use of violence/force on a child is a part of growing up and an acceptable part of society. If we allow parents to use physical force (violence) on their child, its only natural for physical force (violence) to be used by the child.

            On another note, I was happy to eat my words as I read the paper this morning…..there was a protest on the ACC cuts for rape/abuse victims. Seems my loss of hope for the public of NZ was unfounded, but that won’t stop me from being cynical.
            Perhaps if there was a national referendum on the issue led by Bob McCroskie and Simon Barnett? Then I’d be less cynical.

  3. All good points.

    When I read that 100 family survey, I thought much the same things. It also didn’t clarify if parents used things like asking nicely BEFORE resorting to a smack, or timeout etc for the same issue.

    Another headline:

    99 out of 100 journalists volunteer to be put against the wall and shot when the revolution comes. Remaining journalist to write headline: Journalism standards improving following voluntary editing exercise.

  4. I guess that keeps FFM in business, and should have pick of a few plum contracts.

  5. Just thought I’d post another comment to take the “three in a row” prize for this blog.

    You do have a prize for three in a row, don’t you?

    • Of course I had a ‘Three in a Row’ prize and it is my pleasure to announce Zen Tiger as the winner. The offer had been on the website since its birth. Sadly, the prize of an all expenses paid trip to anywhere in the world, with $15,000 spending money just expired last week due to cuts in the familt budget. Since last Thursday the prize is two fold. Firstly, you get to name my 2009 blog book and secondly you get the first copy off the press. This will come out in the New Year.

      Personally I think you got the better deal as travel is over rated. I will contact you next year to arrange distribution but if you could think of a suitable title just reply and I will do the rest. Last year the title was I’M ALAMRED just if you were thinking of that you’re out of luck

      • Awesome. Winning this prize has been an amazing experience for me, and I’d like to thank my trainer, my parents and all those who never gave up on me – which I think would be one of the cats.

        The responsibility of a blog book title seems too overwhelming. I think “I’m Alarmed” might be a goer, but I think I read somewhere that that title might be taken. How about:

        I’m Alarmed II
        I’m II Alarmed
        I’m very alarmed
        I’m still alarmed
        Cut the blue wire
        Alarmed? You haven’t seen me when I’m alarmed.
        A larm? Yes, I’ll have two.
        Read this and be alarmed. Be very alarmed.
        All Liberals Are Really Mad (Especially Democrats)

        On the other hand, no hurt feelings if some-one else comes up with a better title…

        • Excellent ideas

          Personally I like
          I’m II Alarmed

          It keeps the theme going and also highlights its position in the book library.

          One concern I do have is if I go down the ‘I’m Alarmed’ track what will I do in the fifth year.

  6. No, seriously. I mean I had to evade your “you are posting comments too quickly” warning and everything.

  7. Oh dear zen tiger….where do I start?

    I am familiar with your blog and have read it before, but find it little more than a blog for a group of self-sufficing backslappers who delight in perpetuating their neo-liberal ideals.

    Neo-liberal? Not bad for a blog called NZ Conservative.

    Its always the same 5 bloggers aimlessly regurgitating the same thoughts.

    You think a blog should have random blog authors, new every week? Interesting idea.

    I have a look every now and then, as I do on M&M to see the reasoning behind right wing arguments, but I’m always left bemused by the lack of common sense and logic. Instead of changing my views or even getting to the point of questioning them, you reinforce them.

    That’s just your left wing bias coming into force. There’s a fair amount of logic, you just differ on perspective. It’s illogical to mistake perspective for non-logic.

    Your post above is a prime example of why I hate blogs, you take my point that smacking is bad and should be banned, then you stretch it, twist it into something else and take it to a ridiculous extreme .

    The idea that a smack is child abuse was not mine, but promoted by Sue Bradford. I have lots of direct quotes as proof. Not only was the smacking = child abuse meme over-used, but a causal relationship has been suggested that smacking leads to child abuse. My example of “yelling is bad, so ban it” was to illustrate that the law shouldn’t be the first and last recourse to bad parenting.

    Just because you think it’s OK to smack your child, does not mean you think its OK to smack a child with a bat across the face. I wouldn’t say that because it would be a stupid argument and a waste of time. (But you go for it)

    I’m not saying you make that argument. The argument you make is that smacking a child deserves legal punishment, end of story. I’m also not arguing (as you imply) that it might be OK to smack a child. Sometimes, it isn’t. Sometimes even a light smack can be inappropriate. Looks to me like you fail to understand my argument. Suffice to say, you have it wrong. Think on that for a while.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: